Mr. Speaker, although I could lean over and ask my colleague the question, it is important that I ask it for the record.

It is interesting that NDP members talk about infrastructure. The fact is that the topping up this year with $17 billion, to a record of $33 billion in infrastructure for Canada, truly addresses the needs of Canadians. The response of the municipalities, which know best where the needs are, has been maybe not as severe as the member might imply.

The NDP premier of the province of Manitoba has come out very strongly in support of this budget. In fact, he has encouraged the NDP MPs from the province of Manitoba to support it.

I am wondering if the member could tell us, if the premier of Manitoba supports this wholeheartedly and has gone out basically on the campaign trail to support what a great job our finance minister has done, why the federal NDP members cannot find it in their hearts to support a budget that actually helps Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the role of the federal NDP is to look after the interests of all Canadians. It seems that the Minister of Finance, in addressing this House, forgot that there was a province beyond the Rockies. In fact, my riding happens to be on the other side of the Rockies and many provinces did not receive a thing and were absolutely excluded--

I do not know if I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker, but I have obviously touched a nerve with the Minister of Finance.

However, many provinces like my own were not only absolutely excluded from being considered in the budget speech, but were absolutely ignored in this budget, which is one of the many reasons that we are opposing this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on budget 2007, a weighty document I have with me. But before I do that, when I was running for this office, I promised the constituents of my riding that I would bring their message here instead of the government's message to them.

One of the messages I have been getting loud and clear in the last few days is that they want me to address a disconcerting situation occurring in the House. As parliamentarians we try to put the sense of entitlement and arrogance of the limousine Liberals from the past government behind us, but during this debate it was brought to my attention, and of course being in the House I saw it firsthand, that we are now suddenly smacked with a new smugness from the Conservatives.

They resort to quips instead of substance. It is particularly insulting to the members of the House to hear a response to a serious question followed by another question asking if we had read the book or the budget. All hon. members present will know that all parties rely on the critics for their major evaluations needed to properly assess this particular 477 page document. Of course, as well, we rely very heavily as members on our research staff along with the resource facilities from organizations like perhaps the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, along with NGOs that are impacted by the federal budget.

As I am speaking, we can hear members of the Conservative Party laughing and chuckling. It is because their mikes are not turned on. They constantly berate or aggravate members in the House who are trying to do the business of the House.

I want to assure that the members of the House do do their due diligence necessary to properly represent their constituents' interests in this particular budget and all matters before the House. As I was rereading parts of the budget during question period, I found myself barely unable to hear because of the catcalls which prompted me to raise this today. There is ridicule heaped upon one another by the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition.

Canadians want respectful debate in this place, to be able to respect all members in the House. It is time for all parliamentarians to rise above the crass political gamesmanship and take our discourse to a level in Parliament that Canadians deserve.

The budget does nothing to close the every widening prosperity gap. My constituents tell me they believe the budget paid more attention to the boardroom table. They had hoped that they would be listened to, the ideas in conversations such as they have around their kitchen tables. I sent mailings out to my constituents prior to the budget during the so-called consultation phase that the government was going through.

Here are some of the responses that I received: “Jobs that are not through a temporary company”, “Without good jobs you can't pay the rent”, “Disallow corporations access to employees' pension and retirement funds”, “A starting entry liveable wage of a minimum of $9.50 an hour”.

The proposition in this House is of course for $10.

Another response said: “Tax cuts, not what Mr. Harper has done in his first budget but real tax cuts for low income worker--

They asked for more government help with tuition for students, so rich or poor have a chance to go. There are seniors rights and I could go on.

Specifically on this budget, for children and child care, over one million Canadian children continue to live in poverty and go to bed hungry at night. This budget will not help them. The $250 million for child care spaces actually represents a cut of $1 billion. In our estimation it is an admission of the failed 2006 budget in what was supposed to come out of that in child care spaces.

The transfer will not help to build a national child care plan, something the government apparently does not believe in, but in two-thirds of two parent families both parents have to work.

There is some modest support for cultural and recreational facilities which seems to rely heavily on the P3 approach but is unlikely to make a significant dent in the $15 billion deficit in amateur sport facilities.

In terms citizenship and immigration, there is $51 million over two years in the temporary foreign workers program. Temporary foreign workers are often the most exploited in Canadian society. There is nothing to indicate that any of this budgetary commitment will ensure conditions and wages for temporary foreign workers will be equal to Canadians. There is nothing to ensure Canadians who are available and trained to work have the first opportunity for jobs. There is nothing to address the existing huge backlog of the 800,000 people in queue trying to immigrate to Canada.

There is a foreign credential referral office which will be created with a $13 million investment over two years, but in 2006 the Conservatives announced $18 million over two years for the establishment of a foreign credentials agency. This year they are announcing $13 million in operating money, yet there is still no agency and no program.

Hard-working immigrants will continue to face chronic low income and struggle to have their skills recognized. There is no new money for the adaptation programs or language training. New immigrants will continue to struggle as they try to adapt to Canadian society. There is no support to deal with the flaws in the immigration act and no refugee appeal process. Landing immigrant fees have not been removed.

The budget continues to carry forward the $9 billion in corporate tax cuts contained in the first budget and it runs on to 2011. Though manufacturers will get a 50% capital cost allowance for 2007-08, the oil sands will keep its 100% capital cost allowance until the year 2010.

The budget fails to use tax incentives strategically for capital investments that are directly tied to upgrade the capacity, job creation, the implementation of environmental technology or skills training. Each dollar of corporate tax cuts adds about 25¢ to bank and insurance company profits.

In the area of culture, specifically the arts are basically ignored in this budget. There is no specific money for the Canada Council or promoting artists. Heritage is not on the agenda of the government and the minister has been extremely ineffectual up to this point in her tenure.

There are no tax measures for artists, ACTRA called for tax averaging, or support for arts programs for kids. The Canadian Television Fund remains without additional stable funding and museums have no support.

Under foreign aid, this budget actually decreases the percentage of foreign aid as opposed to gross national income from .34% to .31%, less than half the .7% that we internationally agreed to many years ago. The government says that it will increase foreign aid to $900 million but the only money it has actually allotted in this budget is the $200 million already announced for Afghanistan and the $115 million already announced along with the Gates Foundation.

Tax incentives to pharmaceutical companies are not the way to effectively meet the needs of people living with HIV-AIDS and other diseases in the developing world.

Further on health, there is a total of $2.6 billion in new health care investments, but there is no assurance that the principles of the Canada Health Act will be respected and that all Canadians will have equal access to quality care.

The government will establish a Canadian mental health commission to lead the development of a national mental health strategy. The problem here is that many people with mental health problems are ending up on our streets and there is no support for homeless people within housing.

Previous speakers have spoken to the fact that there are more and more homeless people on our streets. There are no new monetary commitments made to CMHC, low income housing, retrofitting or social housing programs. I have page after page of research that our staffs have put together, along with our own research that I could comment on, but I look forward to questions.

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the two questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Windsor West, Automobile Industry; the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Child Care.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton for his thoughtful remarks. Both the tone and the content of his speech I found very useful, in fact heartening in a way.

In his criticism of the budget though, we should acknowledge one thing that we have been asking for, for a long time. I was very pleased to see that we are finally doing away with this idea of tax motivated expatriation. That is the technical term for it. We call it sleazy, tax cheating loopholes of tax havens.

Finally, I believe this budget has eliminated this idea of tax fugitives hiding their profits in tax havens so they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in this country. That I am willing to recognize as a very positive step and something the NDP has been calling for, for many years.

In the same vein, I would like my colleague's views on this. Many of us who have been watching corporate Canada and corporate America are of the view that white collar crime has become a blue collar issue. At least white collar corporate governance has become a blue collar issue, in that if we cannot trust the financial statements of the companies where our pension plans are invested, we all have something very serious to worry about.

Therefore, my question to my colleague is this. In the context of this year's budget, would it not have been worthwhile to revisit some of the practices regarding corporate governance, such as what led to Enron, which was tax auditors and tax consultants being one and the same person? In other words, there should be a wall between the people who audit the books and the people who are giving advice on the books.

Would he agree that this issue of corporate governance perhaps should be the next place we should be going in terms of reining in corporate Canada?

Mr. Speaker, this is what I would call a very easy question in the sense that yes, I would agree with the statement.

Further to that, I just read recently in the paper where there was a company that was supposed to audit the books of a company. It misstated its profits which affected the price on the stock exchange and it paid tens of millions of dollars in penalties for that act. There is the example of Enron and the loss to the people who invested in Enron. We have in this country, from time to time, as the member has indicated, called into question how the pension funds of the workers of Canada are invested. Who is accounting to whom and who has ownership has always been a significant issue.

This is deferred income for people for their retirement years and there should always be workers from those areas on the boards of these institutions. There is a court case in New York, I believe, that is taking place right now, where an individual went after the pensions of the Dominion store employees many years ago. Different people in different organizations have done very questionable things.

In light of the circumstances of Enron, where people are looking to the justice system for justice, it would have been a most appropriate time for the government to evaluate these processes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and analysis and the solutions he put forward.

I will talk about one of the things that troubled me about this budget. As my colleague said, it was fairly voluminous, but in the end it did not add up to much for many Canadians, particularly seniors. I was going door to door talking to seniors in the time we had off from this place. Sadly, I know the government is very vocal about what it has done for seniors, but it forgets to mention those who have lower incomes.

I would like the member's thoughts about what could have been done for seniors, because the government obviously missed the boat on that.

Mr. Speaker, the response is very simple and straightforward. We passed the seniors charter in the House. There was a clear direction from the House to the government as to what we wanted done for seniors and, to be very frank, the government did not get the job done.

Lynne YelichConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, I first would like to know if the member has any evidence on the accusations he made about foreign workers and their problems, because in committee right now we are studying employability, and just the other day one of his colleagues in the NDP actually asked witnesses who were present about that particular circumstance. Perhaps his colleague could inform the member that professional engineers quite like our foreign credential recognition referral agency.

Now that we know he reads the budget page by page, maybe he could confer with his colleague on some of the issues that she has seen unfolding at our committee meetings.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear and honest, as I have been. I do read some of the budget book, but I did not read it page by page. I rely on the critics' assessments. I rely on those other resources. In terms of management style, that is what one does. One uses the tools at hand to help one make decisions.

I would suggest that if the government is looking at foreign workers it should be talking to people in the construction trades and the Canadian Labour Congress and getting some advice.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on the government's budget. I will focus my remarks on how this budget affects my home province of British Columbia and specifically my riding of North Vancouver.

In short, this budget fails British Columbians and constituents in my riding in numerous areas, namely: its new equalization formula; its failure to create any new child care spaces in B.C. or across Canada; insufficient assistance for students; watered-down funding for the Asia Pacific gateway initiative; its failure to provide promised assistance to provinces and municipalities to hire more police officers; and inadequate action on health care.

As we sat in the House a week ago yesterday to listen to the finance minister deliver his budget speech, my parliamentary colleagues from B.C. and I could only shake our heads in disbelief as the finance minister described Canada. I will quote from his speech. He stated:

From the majestic peaks of the Rocky Mountains to the rugged shores of Newfoundland and Labrador, many of the most beautiful places on earth are in Canada.

The problem with the finance minister's statement is not in his characterization of Canada's stunning natural beauty but in his geography. Most of B.C.'s land mass is in fact west of the peaks of the Rocky Mountains.

On the campaign trail, the Conservatives promised to “stand up for B.C.”. It appears there was not even anyone in the finance minister's office who could properly locate B.C. on a map, let alone stand up for our province's interests.

In regard to the government's new equalization formula, the finance minister had barely uttered the naive assertion that “the long, tiring, unproductive area of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over”--

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out an error made by the member for North Vancouver. In British Columbia we are very proud of the fact that the entire western side of the majestic Rocky Mountains lies firmly in the province of B.C. We are proud of that.

I thank the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George for the point, but it is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. I would be happy to recognize him during questions and comments after the hon. member for North Vancouver has finished his speech.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the government's new equalization formula, the finance minister had barely uttered the naive assertion that “the long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and the federal government is over” before several provincial governments began to criticize the budget, including B.C.'s provincial government.

By including property value in its new equalization formula, the government is equating property value with wealth, but if one looks more closely in my riding of North Vancouver and in many areas of B.C., where there has been a massive increase in house prices in the last few years, this is simply false.

In the week before the budget, the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, warned, “Anyone that says that your property values are in direct relation of your ability to pay doesn't frankly know a lot about what they're talking about”.

Everybody in the world knows that high real estate prices translate into de facto wealth, which is taxed by local governments amongst others. So I don't know why that wouldn't be part of the calculation.

The comments of the trade minister in attempting to defend this action confirm that even Conservative members from B.C. are out of touch with British Columbians and have little influence in the government's top-down decision making process.

In my riding of North Vancouver there is a serious housing crisis due to the booming real estate market. A couple who bought a home in North Vancouver 20 or 30 years ago for a fraction of what it is worth today have not seen a similar percentage increase in their personal income. Many are now seniors living on pensions who simply wish to stay in the house and the neighbourhood they have called home for decades.

It is estimated that property values in B.C. rose by 24% last year. Homeowner income did not rise by anywhere close to that amount and municipal property taxes are tied to property value, thereby creating further financial hardship for homeowners. If they sold their home to move elsewhere on the North Shore, or even to most other areas in Greater Vancouver, they would have to pay the same price for a similar house and therefore would find themselves in the same financial position.

To benefit from the increased value of their home, as is reflected in the government's equalization formula philosophy, they would need to buy a substantially less expensive home, which is difficult to find in North Vancouver and, for that matter, in most of the lower mainland of B.C. To see that wealth, they would have to move far away from their families and friends in their current communities.

It is clear that the government's new formula is out of touch with the reality on the ground in B.C. as evidenced by the provincial government's reaction to the budget, which echoed the official opposition's harsh criticism.

On child care, the government promised Canadians choice in child care in the last election and offered Canadians a taxable $100 for each child under six years of age, coupled with a plan to supposedly create child care spaces by offering businesses incentives to create them.

Fourteen months later, what has happened? After tearing up the child care deal signed with the provinces by the former Liberal government, specifically through the efforts of the hon. member for York Centre, the government has replaced them with nothing. Not one new child care space has been created in North Vancouver or Canada.

Because the funding is no longer flowing through those previous federal-provincial child care agreements, local child care facilities in my riding have been forced to cancel capital improvements and in many cases raise fees, sometimes by $100 per month. Thus, there is really no choice offered by the Conservative government. There is just one choice: take the $100 per month. This will not provide new spaces, nor will it make them more affordable or universal.

In this budget, the government has quietly abandoned its election proposal to have businesses create the promised 125,000 new spaces and will instead transfer a lesser amount to the provinces than our previous Liberal government had agreed to, but for children and parents it has been 14 lost months.

In a report released just yesterday by Dr. Fraser Mustard, a Companion of the Order of Canada and an internationally recognized expert in the field of early childhood development, he stated that Canada is ranked dead last among the 20 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to the report, Canada spends just .25% of its GDP on early childhood programs, whereas other developed countries spend up to 2%. Dr. Mustard described the programs and child care assistance that exist in Canada as a “chaotic mess”.

With such a massive budget surplus, the government could have done so much more. Instead, Canada is an international embarrassment and the government responds by reducing child care funding.

Adding insult to injury is the tax bill that parents are now receiving, which requires them to pay tax on the child care rebates already received. Revenue Canada's RC62 forms started arriving at homes several months ago. Judging by the reaction of parents in my riding to this Conservative child care tax bill, it is clear that the government has failed families on child care.

The budget also failed undergraduates in North Vancouver. While the budget did increase the number of students who will be eligible for Canada graduate scholarships, that represents assistance for only Canada's top 4,000 graduate students. While no one would argue that this is not an appropriate investment, the vast majority of students in Canada who are undergraduates will not receive a cent of assistance in this budget.

This means there is nothing for students at Capilano College in my riding, many of whom are enrolled in the successful Capilano College film program. The film centre offers programs that prepare students for a variety of career paths in the film production industry, and these are not necessarily students who will graduate and then leave our community. Many of these graduates will find local jobs in North Vancouver's film industry. North Shore Studios, located in my riding, is the major film producer in Canada and around the world.

There are over 6,000 persons in my riding who work in the film industry. Film and television production add $100 million per year to the North Vancouver economy and an estimated $1.3 billion per year, every year, to the economy of B.C. There is no innovative thinking in this budget that would help foster growth in this local industry by helping students in my riding.

As the official opposition critic for the Asia-Pacific gateway, I was extremely disappointed by the budget's lack of action on gateway projects, as I have been repeatedly in regard to action on gateway projects since the government took office. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has made my job as critic far easier than I wish it were. Whether it be the bungled relations with our trading partners in the Asia-Pacific, specifically with China, which are well documented, or the watered-down commitment to gateway funding and the lack of a cohesive legislative gateway plan, the government has dropped the ball.

In this budget, the government has employed smoke and mirrors on gateway funding to make it appear that it has increased funding when in fact it has yet to honour its election promise to at least match the funding that was attached to the previous Liberal government's Pacific gateway strategy, which included $591 million over five years. Within that five year period, the Conservative government is still $44 million short of what was promised by the previous Liberal government.

In addition, the Liberal gateway investment was always considered a down payment. Unlike the Conservative government, our competitors to the south in U.S. and Mexico are not waiting until 2014 to ramp up port capacity and make critical investments in transportation infrastructure.

By breaking its gateway funding promises, the government is failing B.C. on the gateway at home and abroad through its amateurish approach to relations with our Asia-Pacific trading partners abroad.

For example, it was nine months before the minister visited China. It was 13 months before even a parliamentary secretary visited India. The government closed two consulate offices in Japan. This is not exactly the opportunity based approach we had in mind.

In the last election the Conservatives promised to add 2,500 municipal police officers to Canadian cities. Where was that promise in the budget? Nowhere. Municipalities in B.C., which had hoped the government would walk the walk, are now back on their knees begging for funds to add police officers.

Constituents in my riding want the government to be bold with health policy. I believe it is time for a national catastrophic drug plan to ensure that every Canadian is able to afford prescription drugs recommended by their family physician. It has been estimated that the cost of ensuring that no Canadian spends more than 3% of their annual family income on medication, devices and supplies is $500 million per year.

This government inherited a $13 billion surplus and it has not even honoured its election promises on health care, let alone adopt new strategies such as the catastrophic drug plan, which would help millions of Canadians. One example would be the two million Canadians with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who in many cases have to spend a disproportionately high percentage of their income on health care costs.

For a member of Parliament from B.C., this budget is as much about what is not in it as what is. Whether it is broken election promises or failing to provide anything new for our province, this budget proves that the Conservative campaign slogan to “stand up for B.C.” is as ridiculous as the finance minister's grasp of simple Canadian geography.

Dave MacKenzieConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate I have heard members on the opposite side frequently talk about their fantasy day care program that never seemed to happen. I guess it just did not get done.

What I have always wondered about that day care program was how it would really operate. I am wondering if the member could explain it. Would it be an eight to five, Monday through Friday program? If that is what it was, I wonder, then, what about people in the policing community and the fire community and those people who work in factories around the clock? Would they have been able to take advantage of that fantasy if it ever came true or were they only expected to pay for it?